Menachos 56
Summary
- Today's *daf* is מנחות דף נ"ו, and the *shiur* is sponsored by Jeremy and Adina Hershkowitz לזכר נשמת Jeremy's grandmother רחל לאה בת נחמן צבי Renee Hershkowitz and his grandfather ישראל בן שמואל Sydney Gettenberg, with a request that the נשמה should have an עליה and thanks to the sponsors. The *Gemara* begins from דף נ"ה עמוד ב' at the *השתא* and searches for the *derashah* of the seemingly extra word אותו in the *parashah* of שעיר נשיא, proposing four possible *mi’utim* and ultimately returning to the explanation that אותו teaches that the animal must be in צפון while the *shochet* need not stand in צפון. The *Gemara* then revisits the *Mishnah’s* rules of *chimiz* in *korban minchah*, distinguishing cases where baking generates one or two *malkot* depending on whether the same person or another person did the preceding *arichah*. The *Gemara* next presents four *Tannaitic* positions on performing הקזת הדם on a בכור when it risks causing a מום, and it uses that as a springboard to define when “a second violation after the first” remains actionable, concluding that *machmitz achar machmitz* and *mesares achar mesares* are always liable while *matil mum b’baal mum* depends on a dispute between רבי מאיר and the חכמים.
- Today's *daf* is מנחות דף נ"ו, and today's *shiur* is sponsored by Jeremy and Adina Hershkowitz לזכר נשמת Jeremy's grandmother רחל לאה בת נחמן צבי Renee Hershkowitz and his grandfather ישראל בן שמואל Sydney Gettenberg. The נשמה should have an עליה, and thanks are given to the Hershkowitzes for the sponsorship. The learning begins on דף נ"ה עמוד ב' at the השתא, the first wide line on the bottom of the page.
- The *Gemara* states that after deriving from ושחט את החטאת that all *chatta’ot* require שחיטה בצפון, it asks what the word אותו in the שעיר נשיא passage comes to exclude, and it lists the סימן: נחשון, ושחט, עוף, ובפסח. The first proposal says אותו בצפון ואין שעיר נחשון בצפון, identifying שעיר נחשון as the שעירי חטאות the נשיאים brought at חנוכת המזבח, and it assumes a *hava amina* that since it is included for סמיכה it might also require צפון, with רבי יהודה deriving סמיכה for it from וסמך ידו על ראש השעיר while רבי שמעון instead derives from that phrase that שעירי עבודה כוכבים require סמיכה. The *Gemara* rejects this line by arguing that שעה מדורות לא ילפינן, and it concludes there is no basis to learn rules of a one-time *hora’at sha’ah* offering from offerings that apply לדורות, while bringing related questions from תוספות, נתיבות הקודש, שפת אמת, and the parallel uncertainty in סנהדרין דף טו עמוד ב.
- The second proposal says אותו טעון צפון ואין השוחט עומד בצפון, allowing the animal to be in צפון while the *shochet* stands elsewhere, and it initially challenges this because it appears already derived from רבי חייא’s reading of ושחט אתו על ירך המזבח צפנה that contrasts the invalidity of a *mekabel* standing in דרום while receiving in צפון with the permissibility of the *shochet* not standing in צפון. The *Gemara* later returns to this and explains that רבי חייא’s point is that the *mekabel* must be in צפון even though the *shochet* need not be, and it treats the non-צפון requirement for the *shochet* as learned from the אותו under discussion, while noting a debate whether ולקח yields an independent inference.
- The third proposal says אותו בצפון ואין בן עוף בצפון, suggesting a *kal vachomer* from בן צאן because a bird requires a כהן for מליקה, and it rejects the *kal vachomer* with the פירכא that a בן צאן has the חומרא of requiring a כלי. The analysis raises difficulties based on opinions about the מזבח’s location and the requirement that מליקה be on the מזבח, and it resolves the flow by aligning the *sugya* with the view of רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה that the מזבח is half in צפון and half in דרום so the question becomes where on the מזבח מליקה is performed.
- The fourth proposal says אותו בצפון ואין פסח בצפון, but the *Gemara* says פסח is already derived from רבי אלעזר בן יעקב, who attempts *kal vachomer* arguments from עולה, חטאת, and אשם and rejects each by a counter-חומרא such as כליל, מכפרת על חייבי כריתות, and קדשי קדשים. The *Gemara* concludes that no *kal vachomer* establishes צפון for פסח, so the earlier *mi’ut* is unnecessary, and it settles that the correct function of אותו is the second proposal about the *shochet* not needing to stand in צפון.
- The *Gemara* returns to the *Mishnah’s* statement that liability applies to לישתה, עריכתה, and אפייתה when performed with *chametz*. Rav Pappa rules that אפייה can generate two *malkot*, one for עריכתה and one for אפייתה, with Rashi explaining that אפייה is גמר עריכה and therefore includes an element of עריכה. The *Gemara* resolves an apparent contradiction by distinguishing between a case where the same person did עריכה and then baked versus a case where one person did the עריכה and another came and baked, and it records that the predictability of “one vs. two” is disputed among the *Rishonim*, with Rabbeinu Gershom and Rashi giving opposite mappings for when the baker receives one or two.
- A *baraita* presents four views about a בכור שאחזו דם requiring הקזת הדם: רבי מאיר permits bloodletting only in a place that will not produce a מום, the חכמים permit it even where it will make a מום provided one does not slaughter based on that מום, רבי שמעון permits even slaughter based on that מום, and רבי יהודה forbids bloodletting even if the animal will die. Rashi attributes רבי שמעון’s permissive ruling to דבר שאינו מתכוין as רבי שמעון לשיטתו, while noting that תוספות questions its fit with a *sugya* in בכורות.
- Rabbi Yochanan teaches that all agree *machmitz achar machmitz* is liable because לא תעשה חמץ and לא תאפה חמץ establish independent liability for successive stages, and all agree *mesares achar mesares* is liable because ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות includes liability even for a later act after an earlier one. The dispute is limited to מטיל מום בבעל מום, with רבי מאיר grounding the prohibition in כל מום לא יהיה בו and the חכמים grounding the rule in תמים יהיה לרצון so that once an animal is already a בעל מום a further מום is not barred. The *Gemara* explains רבי מאיר’s use of תמים יהיה לרצון as excluding פסולי המוקדשים לאחר פדיונם from a mummification prohibition despite remaining restricted in גיזה ועבודה, and it explains the חכמים’ use of כל מום לא יהיה בו as extending the prohibition to indirect causation, such as placing food on the ear so that a dog will tear it and create a מום, based on the inclusionary force of כל.
- The *shiur* raises a question from מנחת חינוך about whether the pattern of liability “after” a first violation extends beyond these cases, specifically to מחיקת השם when one letter of the Divine Name has already been erased and whether erasing additional letters would still incur *malkot*. The *shiur* cites the בני יונה as entertaining the possibility that each letter retains independent קדושה and that the logic might differ from cases like מום or סירוס where the second act accomplishes nothing, and it relates practical classroom-type scenarios where one strategy assumes that once the Name is no longer intact it may be erased. The *shiur* ends by stating that learning will continue from the bottom of עמוד ב' tomorrow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions